388
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
38:
tiOE.iW.rea ‘nado,pa$@ e
agents, or othmwiae, for the aonstruotion ar re-
paiT OS my bridge, TOaC, 6treet, alloy or h.OUaC, or
any other work undertaken by such oounty, . . , shall
bsooplainterestad in any bid or proposalfor surh
woxlcor in the puraharo or rale of ax+hiog ma&o for
or an aoaount 0r ouah 3ouJlty . . . or who ahall
ooztraot r0r or rsoeiv~ any money or property, or the
repreeentatlv6 of 6ith6r, or any amlummt or ad-
vantage whataoevu in aouaidaration 0r ouoh bid,
pmpoaal, aontraat, purohaso or 6616, hs ah6U ba
fi;zrt:z 1066 than fifty nor sOr6 than biro hundred
R . I56tifoatiy,th6 ;legl6latur6,in anartiag
the at%., int8adad thawby to protoot QOunti66,
oltios and town6 tram ~fl6ia3 peoul6tion. 3Juoh peau-
htion was the etil nought to be aupprlraaod)and the
ntatute strike@ at the veq root of the evil, by lnaking
it an oftwas* for any ortiou of a county, city ox
town to ba0oma interested peauniarlly In aattuo
#hfmin apoh ~orpomhti~na tkm paounlarily m0r0680a.
Tbs purpoos c$ aueh statute is to prerant oiYlola1
*rings* troa being fomeU an4 ag(nratedho pray apan
the treaauxioaof aountloa, altflrsand tom61 to
prowmE ,theorrioua or aplchborpomtions from’ualng
t&s&r oSfioiaL kn0~164ga-4 influanae t0 thOiT
individual peounlmy adrantags ln the flnanolal tranr-
aoti0r.u0r such. The object6 of ths atatute w&M be
but paztlally ~attainsd51 6ush offioaro ara to bo per-
mitted to deal with their aor$oratlona in the rak
and purohuo OS propaFty. . .
In the Rigby aaao a uounty aommisaioner waa uonvioted ot
selling a pair oi mu146 to the 00kiAtY. It ia our oplnian tibet
-the objaots of the atatute would be but prtiallp attained” ii a
county coma&erionsr could ~6611 his personal ssrvloas rather
then his ohattela. iYeaa~ peraelre M r(uLao6whr a WuntY oom-
tisaionu should ba pemitted to 6011 hi6 Labor or prof666fou61
service to hia county, aurd yet ba denied tho privllegr of aolling
goode, ware8 and aerOhaAai684~
In the oaae of Coroutt v. Clay County, (Tax, Give Appoc
1934) 76 6. $. (aa) 899, suit was brought by a foram OountT
390
Ron. Palree WM, Q&$e 5
o o a sle*iolner Clas
ua la st County to reoover 0595 alloge to be
duo hla for the uee aS I truok cnne4 by hlr an4 we4 Sor the
LIEdit Gr the 8OUnty*h&la he 1118s a 0OWSty~d8dOnOr Ot
thst CGLuAtg.Both the trfsl oourt cur4the Court OS Civil &9-
pssla Qenisd reoovery. Ye guot.4 et %engtihIron the opinion or
JuzstlceLeello:
“In 954 prrt OS the prt1t105 the rp@el&nt
alloge that the tnaok warnueoA Sor thr baetit
OS the oount]rwltb the kmwle&e aad aoqul*rcrmror
OS the other member8OS thw oeurt. In l ?ousdng
paragraphhe J&L(er t&et rinse the oourt qgrorb
to the Justice or the &r&e in so far 8a the
value or the wrvloer LB oanoenMl tha oln&m
thrrebr beowao *aa rooctunt #tatod. Ittin&8lp -
pew8 th a th0
t appellant wa8 attempting to rwwer
a 5 lth*r a nimp l$ o*dr up r e*rmntWOtr T h *r o
~owldbr no irpli&AQommbt:for oontnot# &xe not
lir4 la eontreventioa OS tha~lauurd~.pubUo
i"piw* Yor tbe lme re8soa there wa8 no, uprem
PO ’
8oatamt.
-A...
391
lntereated ik any oontr8ot ror the puroheae or
8ny dmt 0r order in the tmasumr 0r luoh
ocunty . . . or or;yot&er dabt, claim em demand,
aball be fine4 not lem than ten nor more
Gn*tsor;ty timer thr naount of the order. . .*
Drum ttcr,Soregoing, it is obviooe tbef
the agpaltiant'caleSs, (LBaisolo~e4 by hi8 plosd-
.,. LnfJ lo l@&lrt tte law a&4 pub110 polloy. Any
oh~m on the part OS euoh pub110 orfloial thet
redo upon any uharrotor OS oontraot batuson him-
081s ard the owzty tiiak he has morn to 8tme,
IS ObnGXiOU4l to Sounb publlio POliOy aA ou@t
5ewt to b 6lnr o r o ed.
:i%ether ba~la oS liability
n8 arrerted by the pibiY&tirrr
%aeh oleine, or purprte4 OoLtraota, are
4orxaentu9m
raid en* uaeriSorc4abla. %xJc;eadeQ
the prlaolple~or law involvedis u5500bamr~JI~
In aQ<lorito the authorl~lrr above oiOa4 -ioh
ramant t&s ju&mrit of t&c trial uourt, the ,i ;:!.g
Scllotirg &4d?tlonel authorltlrr are cited~
Enlppa vr Stertart iron \Yorka(Tex. Clt.,,Ap&)
46 b. YI.52.2;X3,C. Kesd, Ix'r, 0. 5~4 &faith,
40 Ter. 899; ME;by v. 3Eote l!VTcs.‘App. Ilb,
I9 $9 X. 940; SOU COUtl jUUg*, Ve lrOrbUOk
at al. ('Ees.cit. E 9.) l84 9. Q. slq Lo err'
couot~yv. Bdrrardo,E06 Ey* 85, f66 8. li'. 819s
keXa$n et al. t. XiillerCoaty 180 Ark. BpB,
85 8..w'.(ltd)664; %tate ax soi . Citimsa'Or
fowreneeburg ve Pefkinaw, 159 Temaq 446, 1.)5.
ma) a.*
Ir'.
In a letter oylnlcn to the county attorney OS YOUI& County
thlr Qeprrtdnt he16 on July 18, lOSO, that oount oosmir~ionerr
Oannot be paid an? o&m ooropulmation by ths'oeun i7 tor their
6cmices 4xoapt thet proriard b7 law for their ~enio~r SB
oounta ooPisllesioner8avon tbou&i performingumo OS th* butler
or a rod aqwnlnt&utr
In view or the ebote suthtwltiee, en4 the rerronlng in
support of the oeeea UlewasaeAend oiOe4 n agree with tho
opinion readore by you oc April 15 ld ~~4 srddroaaret!
to
your aounty fudge, 009~ OS which yea! Surn~rhe4 ue: Itie our
.-
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion